Re: Windows NT 4.0, 95, 98 (?) networked PRN flaw

From: Terry Milnes (tezat_private)
Date: Mon Jun 07 1999 - 05:16:02 PDT

  • Next message: Andrew Kunz: "Update on compaq webadmin"

    Well I better clarify here, I did test this but misunderstood
    the initial post, I started with Rm -d prn on the directory,
    and of course it did delete, tried Rm prn on a file, it
    deleted too, I quickly scanned the message, thought it said
    something else so played with a couple of other ways and
    posted....
    
    So all of you out there who are wondering what is different
    about my NT, nothing is different just the operator.
    
    Terry...
    
    "STEVENS, Eric" wrote:
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > I suppose that, in an effort to maintain reverse compatibility with
    > old MS-DOS command line gurus, you cannot create a file or directory
    > named PRN.xxx where the xxx is replacable with any extension.
    > Explanation and flaw follow.
    >
    > First, the explanation (for those of you who are familiar with the
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:48:20 PDT